Sweden and Europe lag behind in vaccination rates. Some of the explanations are slow approval, stinginess, and poor national preparations for getting vaccinated for people.
This is the opening that crosses the political line of Alihanda Stadium. Ystad Lahanda acts as a leader of human values and the free economy. Etiquette of the political newspaper is liberal.
Finally, the COVID-19 vaccination has begun. But could the vaccine have reached more people faster? Much speaks for itself. to me The Economist Israel, the world’s number one, had a vaccination rate of 16 percent on January 4, while the United States and Britain were 1-2 percent of the population. But by that time, most European Union countries had barely started vaccinating, and some had not at all. Germany, home to Pfizer, which together with Biontech developed the first approved vaccine, was 0.4 percent.
One explanation is that the Pfizer-Biontech vaccine was approved by the European Medicines Agency, EMA, only on December 22, three weeks after UK approval and ten days after the US. On January 6, approval of the Moderna vaccine was on the agenda for the EMA, a vaccine that was approved in mid-December by the FDA. Astra Zenecas is already in use in the UK but is not expected to launch in the European Union until next month. All this according to The Economist.
A contributing factor to the differences, According to Politico, Is that the UK government bears more responsibility for any vaccine side effects, while the European Union will largely hold pharmaceutical companies responsible.
The approval processes have to be comprehensive and it is officially said that this is the reason for the relative delay of the EMA. But although the pressure on the US Food and Drug Administration has been fierce to approve Covid vaccines, the FDA is not known to be more lenient than its European counterpart. Many Swedish companies in the medical sector can attest that approval is difficult in the US market and that the FDA is meticulous in many aspects, from patient safety and efficacy to production.
Another partial explanation for the relatively slow process in the European Union is what it is intended to be an advantage: joint procurement. Here, The Economist believes the EU looked at the price to a large extent and thus contracted a smaller share of the Biontech / Pfizer vaccine that is more expensive and more difficult to distribute (due to the high demand for cold storage). According to the location Politico However, it is not certain that that would have helped, as production bottlenecks are a major problem.
In Europe, most people have to wait for the cheaper and easier-to-distribute Astra Zeneca vaccine. Once it appears in large quantities, the national challenge remains in finding ways to deliver a vaccine to a sufficient number of weapons in a short time. The shortcomings here relate to the national healthcare preparations and systems. Of course, if the Israelis succeed, Sweden and other European Union countries should also be on top.
It’s about getting organized and getting as many people as possible who actually want to get vaccinated. Slow handling of approval by the EMA could, in theory, increase confidence that it is safe, but in practice it is questionable. After all, vaccinations are the same after all.
The difference might seem a few weeks slightly. On the contrary, the importance is great. The spread of infection has reached its peak in recent weeks, with a large number of patients and a heavy burden on healthcare in many countries. Shutting down large sections of societies has a heavy price in many ways, economically and socially. The adverse effects are greatest with a shift of each day and week. It is sometimes said that miserliness deceives wisdom. Unfortunately, this may be a contributing factor in delaying the fight against the epidemic against vaccines. However, the big drawback appears to be in the later stages – to get as many stitches as possible in the shortest time possible.